Jurisdictional Struggles Between Bishop and Grand Master in Malta in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century

Abstract

This study examines the jurisdictional disputes between the bishop of Malta and the grand masters of the Order of St John during the first half of the seventeenth century, specifically from 1563 to 1650, in the wake of the Council of Trent. It focuses on conflicts concerning ecclesiastical immunities—personal, real (material), and local—as key points of tension between spiritual and temporal authority in early modern Malta. By analysing extensive archival correspondence preserved in the diocesan archive of Malta between the bishop, the grand master, and the Holy See, the study reconstructs how these immunities were invoked, negotiated, and contested. It employs a historical–legal methodology, interpreting these documents within the wider European context of Tridentine reform and absolutist State building. While established scholarship has highlighted broader patterns of Church–State conflict in early modern Europe, this study contributes an original case from the periphery of Catholic Christendom, where both bishop and grand master were ultimately subject to the papacy. The article is structured around the three traditional forms of ecclesiastical immunity, each examined as a distinct yet interconnected site of struggle. It argues that, in Malta, the application of Tridentine reforms served both to consolidate episcopal authority and to provoke resistance from secular powers, revealing the complex, mediated nature of ecclesiastical governance. The study ultimately sheds light on how canonical tradition, papal intervention, and local political configurations shaped the contested boundaries of sacred and secular jurisdiction.

1. Introduction

Throughout history, issues of jurisdiction have been a source of contention in the relationship between Church and State. These issues particularly came to the fore in Malta during the Hospitaller period, when successive grand masters of the Order of St John and bishops of the island both held the pope in Rome as their ultimate superior. To complicate matters, the popes began to send their own representatives to Malta, as apostolic delegates and inquisitors, to oversee the affairs of the bishop and grand masters closely. This period coincided with a time of accelerated Church reform, spurred by the turmoil brought about on the continent by the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Church’s desire to maintain its significant traditional presence in society. Statesmen, particularly those who embraced the Protestant faith, seized the opportunity they had long desired to address what they regarded as the unjust usurpation of their jurisdiction by the Church, primarily evident through the ecclesiastical court system. Catholic monarchs were not immune to such encroachments on ecclesiastical authority and viewed the reform as a long-awaited chance to resolve, as Paul Mikat aptly termed it, “smouldering conflicts about competence” (Mikat 1981, p. 270). Within this heightened struggle, bolstered by the provisions of the Council of Trent, the Church felt emboldened to defend its position in society against what is often perceived as the undue influence of the increasingly absolutist demands of the State in its affairs. This paper examines a series of documents from the diocesan archive in Malta that record the mutual correspondence between the bishops and the Holy See, demonstrating how such correspondence is essential for understanding these complex jurisdictional struggles in the modern State.

The chronological era under consideration extends from the end of the Council of Trent in 1563 to 1650, allowing ample time to consider the consequences of applying the Tridentine decrees. It also sets a working model for future consideration of the relationship between bishop and grand master in the remaining decades of Hospitaller Malta. Both grand master and bishop answered directly to the pope. The conflicts between these two authorities arose primarily from issues of immunity, with the Church seeking to defend its privileges, including personal, real, and local immunities. In contrast, the secular authorities under the grand master attempted to consolidate power, following broader European trends toward absolutism. Tension was heightened by the application of the decrees of the Council of Trent which bolstered the Church’s position within the confessional State. These reforms, promulgated across Catholic Europe, aimed to strengthen the spiritual and administrative control of the Church, often coming into direct conflict with secular authorities.

The objects of the jurisdictional struggles, documented in the correspondence considered, are issues concerning ecclesiastical immunity. More than any other issue, immunity defines the very heart of the relationship between Church and State. In canonical tradition, immunity is defined as:

An exemption from a legal obligation (munus) imposed on a person or his property by law, custom, or the order of a superior. This exemption is a privilege and follows the same rules. In ecclesiastical terminology, immunities are exemptions established by law in favour of sacred places and sacred things, church property and persons.

(Boudinhon 1910)

Following the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the ecclesiastical courts experienced a profound expansion in scope and sophistication, becoming an essential pillar of medieval legal culture and delivering significant benefits to society. Key milestones in this process included the scholarly study of canon law, the compilation of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, and the establishment of a body of officials, each contributing to the system’s legal and institutional consolidation.1 By the mid-fourteenth century, these foundational advancements had largely matured across the whole of Christendom. As Christoph Volkmar has shown in his seminal study of the ecclesiastical court system during the Protestant reform in Germany, by the dawn of modernity, the Church could boast of an ecclesiastical judicial framework unparalleled by any secular counterpart. It was marked by the integration of Roman law principles into a codified legal system, a highly efficient procedure based on written records and a cadre of professionally trained judges (officiales). Furthermore, its hierarchical organization was comprehensive throughout the Latin Church, extending across spatial and jurisdictional boundaries (Volkmar 2017, pp. 237–38). However, it must be said that what Volkmar asserts here is only partially accurate. Historically, ecclesiastical courts held exclusive jurisdiction over numerous matters, especially those concerning moral and spiritual issues within the Christian community. Over time, however, secular courts have progressively expanded their jurisdiction into areas traditionally governed by ecclesiastical law. This shift led eventually to a redefinition of boundaries between Church and State authority, often resulting in conflicts over issues such as marriage, education, and clerical appointments; ultimately the jurisdictional conflicts considered in this paper. Ultimately the modern concept of the Church as “societas perfecta” took root. This was developed by theorists such as the Jesuit St. Robert Bellarmine in polemic with the Protestants’ individualistic conception of the State and in the context of the rise of the Protestant States in what had formerly been Catholic Europe. The notion was further developed in the nineteenth century in opposition to the increasing assertion of the primacy of the State, where the Church faced the real danger of being relegated to simply another organ in the State, subject to its superior jurisdiction and regulation in all matters (Hittinger 2008, p. 371; Ragazzi 2012, p. 116). The concept of societas perfecta developed further in the context of the Roman Question, and the hostile separation between the liberal State and the Church, by theorists like the Jesuit Camillo Cardinal Tarquini who argues at length: “Ecclesia Christi societas est perfecta est in se completa, adeoque media ad suum finem obtinendum sufficientia in semetipsa habet”2 (Tarquini 1873, p. 38). The key concept was developed further by the writers on the ius publicum ecclesiasticum externum, who specified that the Church is a societas iuridice perfecta, a notion clearly affirmed in Ottaviani’s Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici, in an attempt to arm the Church with a powerful instrument against all attempts by political authorities to restrict its freedom3 (Ottaviani 1958).

Extensive archival records attest that Malta participated in these developments By the fifteenth century (Doublet 2022, pp. 75–84), the ecclesiastical court system mirrored the sophistication and comprehensiveness of the broader Church’s judicial framework, emerging in the Latin world as an unparalleled legal entity that far exceeded, or at least competed well with, its secular counterparts in structure and function. Emboldened by the provisions of the Council of Trent and in line with broader European developments, ecclesiastical tribunals in Malta became integral to the administration of justice, addressing both spiritual and temporal matters. By the late sixteenth century, multiple ecclesiastical tribunals were active, including the Magna Curia in Valletta, the Curia Provicarialis in Mdina, and similar courts in Gozo and Vittoriosa, each presided over by bishops or pro-vicars with specific territorial jurisdiction.

A cursory look at these court proceedings is enough to show how broad the jurisdiction exercised by ecclesiastical courts was, making them an appealing alternative to secular courts for many. Their accessibility, efficiency, and transparency attracted even lay persons at times to seek justice through them, while a flexible interpretation of canon law enabled these courts to address disputes of purely secular origin. Jurisdiction ratione personarum encompassed all clergy under the privilegium fori. Jurisdiction ratione rerum covered areas closely tied to the Church’s sacraments, including marriage and wills, as well as matters deemed sinful, such as breaches of contract, which were often reinforced by religious oaths. These cases, categorized as causae spiritualibus annexae, or sometimes causae mixti fori due to their contested nature between ecclesiastical and secular courts, reflected the Church’s role in adjudicating moral and social transgressions. Furthermore, canon law permitted ecclesiastical courts to intervene in secular cases when secular courts failed to ensure justice. This expansive jurisdiction rendered the ecclesiastical courts formidable competitors to their secular counterparts, influencing a broad spectrum of public and private life (Volkmar 2017, pp. 237–38).

Although the Corpus Iuris Canonici sought to define the limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the boundaries between the ecclesiastical and secular spheres of competence remained as blurred as the delicate balance of power between Church and State that they sought to safeguard. However, in the early modern period the State, now ever more aware of its inherent sovereignty, accelerated its struggle to take back spheres of competence it considered inherent to its nature, seeking to exercise jurisdiction over all the people within its territory. Since this was hampered by a consolidated canonical tradition and entrenched ecclesiastical immunities, the State sought indirect methods of control, including frequent appeals to Rome, even on the minutest matters. Ultimately, these jurisdictional issues had clear financial consequences since immunities hampered the collection of taxes, and court fees and fines were a coveted source of income.

To better define the crux of the matter, the most significant stumbling block the modern State found in consolidating the coveted absolutist control of society regarding these immunities can be defined, for simplicity’s sake, as “the exemption of ecclesiastical persons and property from secular jurisdiction”. The present work explores how the application of the Tridentine decrees established the foundation for Rome’s resolution of disputes between the bishop and the grand master. It then considers examples of disputes concerning “local immunity”, that is, the immunity reserved for places consecrated to worship or churches; “real immunity”, being exemptions enjoyed by ecclesiastical property; and finally “personal immunity”, that is, the immunity enjoyed by clerics, their lawsuits, and trials. As it became more absolutist, the State became increasingly intolerant of the privileges and exemptions enjoyed by ecclesiastical bodies. The Church increasingly came to be seen as an “instrumentum regni”, and the freedoms it enjoyed were extended or curtailed depending on how it served the purposes of the all-encompassing State. In Malta, this process was somewhat hindered by both the self-consciousness of the Church and its standing in society, already well established before the arrival of the Order, as well as by the fact that both bishop and grand master ultimately responded to a common superior, the pope in Rome. However, similar to developments on the continent, ecclesiastical immunities were progressively curtailed with the increasing secularization of the State.

Understanding the jurisdictional struggles between Church and State in early modern Malta does more than shed light on local history; it provides a compelling lens through which to explore broader tensions that have persisted into the present and are likely to shape the future. The Maltese case—where the grand master of the Order of St John functioned simultaneously as the head of a religious Order and a secular prince, while bishops and inquisitors exercised competing ecclesiastical authority—offers a microcosm of the entangled sovereignties typical of confessional polities. As Emanuel Buttigieg, in considering these competing jurisdictions, has suggested, the early modern Maltese polity can be understood as an “island order state”, a network of overlapping jurisdictions and ritualized power relationships that only ever became partially institutionalised (Buttigieg 2017, pp. 110–19). Within this fluid configuration, Church–State conflict was not only a matter of governance but also of performance, perception, and resistance. By examining the recurring conflicts between bishop and grand master through the lens of ecclesiastical immunity—personal, real, and local—this essay illuminates not only historical dynamics but also the enduring negotiation of authority that continues to inform to a certain extent even contemporary Church–State relations, as the Church continues to struggle to find its voice in the secular public square.

As the grand master sought to consolidate his power and the Church defended its privileges, tensions arose over the application of the Council of Trent’s decrees, the role of ecclesiastical courts, and the boundaries of sacred and secular jurisdiction. This essay examines these conflicts, analysing the role of each form of immunity in the broader power struggles between grand master and bishop and the complex role of the inquisitor as a mediator between them. The jurisdictional conflicts between bishop and grand master in Malta reflect broader European struggles between Church and State during the early modern period. These tensions, unresolved, and at times even exacerbated by the decrees of the Council of Trent, set the stage for a delicate and often contentious balance of power, with both authorities appealing to Rome to validate their claims.

At the heart of this study lies the hypothesis that, in the unique context of early modern Hospitaller Malta, the implementation of the Tridentine reforms both empowered the episcopate and intensified jurisdictional conflict with the grand master, whose secular authority was increasingly shaped by absolutist aspirations. The central question explored is how ecclesiastical immunities—local, real, and personal—became focal points of this conflict, not only as legal privileges but as contested expressions of sovereignty within a confessional polity. This hypothesis guides the analysis of the disputes presented in the following sections, each illustrating how the tension between canon law and political authority played out in the Maltese setting.

2. The Application of the Tridentine Decrees in Malta

Given that both the highest authorities of the island, that is, the grand master and the bishop, ultimately responded to a common superior in Rome, there was, it seems, no great difficulty in promulgating the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545–63) in Malta.4 While the Council was still ongoing, the bishop of Malta, Domenico Cubelles, obtained on 17 July 1553 a decree from Rome granting him temporal power and jurisdiction over all non-religious lay persons resident within the confines of the diocese of Malta in so far as cases of a religious nature were concerned, over those who were his vassals or dependents, or who sought sanctuary in any of the churches and chapels in the diocese, save for those which were the property of the Order of Saint John or founded by it. While respecting the consolidated tradition on the causae mixti fori, the decree granted vast powers of jurisdiction to the bishop, and yet still outlined some specifications and limitations to his jurisdiction.5 Cubelles also held the role of inquisitor. Such extensive power of jurisdiction was considered necessary in the face of the spread of Protestant heresy and was bolstered by the Tridentine decrees. It is in the light of his role as inquisitor that such a broad jurisdiction should be understood. After the visit to Malta of the apostolic delegate Mgr Pietro Dusina from 1574 to 1575, the two roles were separated, following which issues of jurisdiction also arose from time to time between the inquisitor and the bishop, requiring Rome’s intervention. To cite but one example, in 1630 Bishop Baldassare Cagliares raised four issues of disputed jurisdiction against the inquisitor, to which Rome responded that the latter could prove his jurisdiction on these matters “nelle risolutioni e decreti, alter volte fatti in simili casi”.6 That is, Rome sought to resolve matters of jurisdiction between the local bishop and the inquisitor by simply appealing to the customary way that the Roman tribunals and congregations (which in many cases acted as tribunals themselves) had sought to resolve previous disputes, as well as through appeal to established tradition. In any case, the inquisitor, being also the papal legate on the island, could vindicate his claims by appealing to the jurisdiction he enjoyed as the pope’s representative.

As regards the Tridentine decrees, historiography has focused chiefly on the Dusina’s apostolic visitation as the benchmark to measure their application’s success or lack thereof. By the time of his visit, several decrees had already been issued by Don Antonio Bartolo who, as vicar general of the diocese during the vacant see between the episcopates of Domenico Cubelles (1540–66)7 and Martin Rojas (1572–77)8, carried out a pastoral visitation of the diocese in 15709 and promulgated a series of decrees ordering the application of the Conciliar decrees. Several disciplinary measures were promulgated on Ash Wednesday, 8 February 1570:

Pro Curia

Die VIII dicti mensis Februarii die Cinerum seu Quadragesime, fuerunt presentes Constitutiones publicatae infra sollemnia Missae congregato populo ad divina audienda per Reverendum Dominum cl(ericum) Joannem Bernardinum de Silva, Sacrae Theologiae Doctorem, conventus Sancti Francisci Ordinis Minorum. U(nde):

Cum nihil in Ecclesia Dei disciplina partum laudabilius sit, quod divinum cultum augeat et fideles humiles ac devotos reddat, vel ecclesiasticos qui eadem ut aliis exemplo sint pietate, moribus ac honestate, eo ordine quo instituta est observantes, profitentur eam praesertim quae in reformatorum decretis, Sacro San(cti) Oecumenici Concilii Ttridentini tradita est; et ex regione perturbatione detestabilius nihil est, quod animos fidelium a Dei laudibus avertat atque pessumdet, idcirco, cum initio huius nostri muneris considerantes iam, tum ob divini cultus defectum ac ministrorum, tum etiam alias ob causas nos impellentes evangelica admonitione omnes fere clericos in Domino prevenire quo maiori cum reverentia divinus cultus exhibeatur, videntes haud praeter animi dolorem hanc ipsam disciplinam nedum hactenus minime obsedrvatam iri, sed etiam in contemptum haberi, statuimus per publica edicta sub poenis in iisdem contentis, ut saltem quod pietas et spiritus lenitatis non movent, virga coerceat in vim suam (adiuvante Deo) quatenus opus sit redigere […].10

Bartolo then proceeded to give disciplinary instructions regarding the obligation of clerics, particularly the canons of the Cathedral, to be present for the divine office on Sundays and feast days, the prohibition of priests from hearing confessions before having been duly examined by and granted the necessary permission from the ordinary, the duty of parish priests to publish marriage bans as stipulated by Tridentine decree “Tam Etsi”, the obligation to have a man and a woman as godparents at baptisms, the duty of parish priests to teach catechism in the vernacular, for clerics and nuns to wear the appropriate dress, for clerics to wear the tonsure, the prohibition for people to practise superstitious medical cures and to dabble in magic, to practise usury, or to eat prohibited foods during Lent.11

Needless to say, the reforms took time to take root. In another monitoria issued on 1 July 1570, Bartolo laments among other things the lack of priests serving the Cathedral and orders the canons to be present for the canonical hours, if they were not otherwise occupied in serving the pastoral needs tied to their benefices or “ius patronati”.12 Following Dusina’s visitation, Rome issued several directives to settle disputes between Grand Master Jean Levesque de la Cassière (1502–81) and Bishop Martín Rojas de Portalrubio (1512–77)13 and a series of recommendations for administrative reforms deemed necessary within the local Church.14

The extent of the bishop’s jurisdiction was a cause of continuous contention, with subsequent grand masters appealing to Rome seeking clarifications on this issue. In 1595 the Holy See intervened to specify in detail the limits and extent of the bishop’s temporal authority and the extent of the privilege of clerics to appear before the ecclesiastical courts.15 A matter of continuous concern to the secular authorities was the sheer number of clerics, considering the number of people enjoying immunity to be too great, to the extent that it could hamper the orderly administration of justice. Considering such issues, Bishop Tomás Gargallo (1536–1614),16 during his ad limina visit of 1595, presented his concerns to the Congregation of the Council. The prefect, Cardinal Girolamo Mattei (1547–1603),17 confirmed that:

Clericos coniugatos qui unicam et virginem duxerunt uxorem, et in habitu ac tonsura incidunt, et al[ieni] Ecclesiae de mandato Episcopi inserviunt; deberi utique fori privilegio gaudere.18

Cardinal Orazio Lancellotti (1571–1620),19 chancellor of the Congregation of the Council, reconfirmed this decree in 1619.20 However, this did not settle the matter, as later grand masters such as Antoine de Paule still sought to exert some form of jurisdiction over married clerics who were not in the service of any particular church. On one occasion he was advised by his ambassador in Rome, Aldobrandini, that:

E ben vero che per rispetto delli pesi di far la guardia, e di mantener cavalli per difesa dell’Isola li chierici coniugati non possono pretendere esentione alcuna; anzi che conformo la più vera opinione de Dottori possono esser astretti dal Principe a sopportare li sudetti pesi, facendo esecutione de pegni sopra la loro beni. Sin tanto che s’inducono all’obbedienza, ma non già carcerandoli, o in altro modo toccando la loro persona, la quale per haver il Privilegio del Canoni, non possono da Giudici secolari esser ritenuto, ne punite di pena corporale.21

At the heart of the ambassador’s assertion lies a deeper legal and theological ambiguity surrounding married clerics who were often perceived as straddling the boundaries between lay and clerical states. This liminal position rendered them particularly vulnerable in jurisdictional disputes: while canonists maintained that their sacred status afforded personal immunity from torture or corporal punishment, secular authorities increasingly claimed competence over their temporal affairs, especially in matters of property. This tension was not isolated to penal matters. By the late medieval period, the Latin Church began to legislate more explicitly on the invalidity of marriages contracted by clerics in major orders—most notably through Canon 7 of the First Lateran Council (1123)—thus reinforcing the principle of clerical celibacy as a juridical norm rather than merely a disciplinary ideal. Importantly, this norm did not extend to those who had received only tonsure or minor orders, whose marriages, though strongly discouraged, remained valid in the eyes of canon law. These nuanced distinctions, however, were often blurred in practice and provoked significant challenges at the local level—including in Malta—where entrenched customs and ecclesiastical pragmatism frequently clashed with evolving canonical standards. The Maltese issues being here considered thus afford us a valuable insight into the practical consequences of these tensions, which were of course not isolated to the Hospitaller State but were an issue for the whole Latin Church (Stickler 1995).

In conclusion, the Tridentine reforms significantly reshaped Malta’s religious landscape, emphasizing both the Church’s authority and clerical discipline. The island’s ecclesiastical environment, characterized by the dual authority of the grand master and the bishop, presented unique opportunities while also introducing challenges in implementing these reforms. Their shared allegiance to the pope facilitated the adoption of the Council of Trent’s decrees, yet overlapping jurisdictions often led to disputes that required frequent intervention from Rome. These complexities reveal the ongoing struggle to balance spiritual authority and temporal governance in Malta’s distinctive context.

Figures such as Bishop Cubelles, Don Antonio Bartolo, and Mgr Dusina exemplified the commitment to enforcing clerical discipline and regulating ecclesiastical practices. However, achieving the ideals of the Tridentine reforms proved challenging due to tensions between secular and ecclesiastical authorities over clerical immunity, the status of married clerics, and the administration of ordinary justice. These struggles illustrate the broader conflict between the universal aspirations of the Catholic Church and local governance realities.

To fully understand the implications of these dynamics, it is essential to explore the concept of local immunity, which significantly shaped the jurisdictional struggles between secular and ecclesiastical powers. Local immunity not only influenced their relationship but also had profound implications for justice administration and the sanctity of churches. By delving into how local immunity functioned in Malta, we shall uncover further complexities that define Church–State relations in this unique context, setting the stage for a deeper examination of its historical significance.

3. Local Immunity

Local immunity played a crucial role in Malta’s jurisdictional conflicts, akin to trends observed in other regions. This immunity protected churches, chapels, and other sacred sites from secular interference. Throughout Malta, as in various European areas, churches functioned as sanctuaries where individuals could seek refuge from civil authorities. Typically, civil officials were not permitted to enter these spaces without the consent of Church leaders. Nonetheless, the Order’s obligation to maintain public order frequently led to tensions regarding the utilization of these properties.

Notable examples of local immunity in action included the sanctuary status of churches. Individuals accused of crimes or eluding authorities routinely sought asylum there and secular officials were barred from forcibly removing them. While intended to safeguard the sanctity of the church, this privilege often clashed with the grand master’s efforts to enforce secular law. In defence of local immunity, the bishop contended that secular officials had no authority to enter a church or apprehend those seeking sanctuary. This led to numerous disputes during the Hospitaller period, with the grand master and bishop appealing to Rome to substantiate their positions.

Only towards the end of the Hospitaller rule did Rome take a decisive step to limit abuse of the claim to sanctuary. Under the growing influence of Enlightenment ideas, during the magistracy of Grand Master Manuel Pinto de Fonseca, ecclesiastical immunity began to be increasingly perceived as an anachronistic right that hindered the State’s ability to administer justice (Ciappara 1985, pp. 117–32; Ciappara 2008, pp. 227–43). This modern perspective sought to limit the Church’s powers so that the State could assert its sovereignty over secular matters, including the administration of justice. A significant development in this regard was Pinto’s acquisition of a decree from Rome by Pope Clement XIII on 10 January 1761 which restricted ecclesiastical immunity to parish churches and affiliated chapels where the Blessed Sacrament was preserved.22 This meant that other churches, chapels, and sacred places that did not house the Sacrament lost their right to sanctuary and protection from civil jurisdiction. On 30 May 1761, the bishop’s curia ordered that notices be placed prominently on the façade of every chapel that had lost this right, indicating that these churches and chapels no longer enjoyed ecclesiastical immunity.23 Marble plaques were later also affixed to some of these buildings, which are still visible on many churches today, bearing the inscription “Non gode l’immunità ecclesiastica” (Does not enjoy ecclesiastical immunity). Protests were not lacking, particularly one from cleric Nicola Debono, who wanted to safeguard the rights of the church of Our Lady of Sorrows in Żebbuġ, which was under lay patronage. As a result, the Sacra Congregazione dell’Immunità Ecclesiastica ordered Bishop Bartolomé Rull (1691–1769)24 to issue another decree,25 which he did on 17 June 1762, limiting the churches that had lost the right to immunity to 93 rural churches instead of the original 255.26

The Council of Trent had ordered diocesan bishops to regularly visit the parishes, churches, and foundations under their care. Another issue of contention between the grand master and the bishop often proved to be the bishop’s presumption to have the right to visit the churches founded by the Order for the service of its members. In 1619, in a dispute between Grand Master Alof de Wignacourt and Bishop Cagliares over such a presumed right, the Sacred Congregation of the Council ruled that the bishop had no right to enter any churches that belonged to or were founded by the Order, listing specifically the conventual church of St John, the Sacra Infermeria, the church of St Catherine of the Langue of Italy, the church of St James of the Langue of Castille, the oratory of the Langue of Portugal, the church of Our Lady of Victory, and any other church which the grand master had legitimately destined for the use of the knights, at least until the start of 1620, or unless the Congregation itself allowed the bishop to do so. On the other hand, the Congregation ruled that the hospital in Mdina (Rabat) fell under the bishop’s jurisdiction since it was founded and administered by the diocese.27 The bishop fared better with regard to another foundation, which was under the protection and authority of the grand master, this being the monastery of the nuns of St Ursula in Valletta, as the Congregation of the Council deemed it possible for the bishop to enter the cloistered part of the monastery.28

Rome was also very aware that the immunity of churches was susceptible to abuse. Although the bishop was to remain vigilant to ensure that ecclesiastical immunity associated with churches and consecrated places was protected, it was not the intention of the Apostolic See to extend any claim of immunity indefinitely. It was conscious that there were cases when criminals claimed sanctuary and then used the church as their base to leave and return as they pleased, even to commit new crimes. In 1627 Cardinal Bandini ordered Bishop Cagliares to limit the immunity of fugitives that, in virtue of the bull of Gregory XIV (r.1590–91),29 enjoyed immunity for a period of three days, after which the immunity was to end and the bishop was to arrest the fugitives and keep them in the Curia’s jail for prosecution:

Si fece estrarre con quella decenza che ordina la bolla …, et ritenendoli nelle Carceri della Curia Ecclesiastica, dia avviso quà delli delitti, de quelli vengono imputati, acciò se le possa rescrivere quello dovrà esse pure.30

The letter further empowered the bishop to expel from religious Orders and the attached privileges any cleric who helps to give sanctuary to such fugitives beyond the terms allowed in this same letter. Local immunity served as a practical safeguard for the sacrality of a church but also proved to be a persistent source of contention with the grand master. The gradual curtailment of this privilege, particularly under Enlightenment influences, reveals the shifting priorities of the State toward consolidating secular authority at the expense of ecclesiastical tradition.

4. Real Immunity

The immunity granted to Church property was another significant source of tension. Real immunity exempted Church lands and buildings from secular taxation and interference, a tradition that extended as far back as the late Roman Empire. As the Order of St John sought to centralize their authority over the Hospitaller State, they increasingly viewed the Church’s extensive landholdings as an impediment. In 1555 Bishop Cubelles resorted to the representative of the feudal lords of Malta and obtained from the viceroy in Sicily, in the name of the Spanish emperor, a letter that confirmed that, although the diocese of Malta had been included in the 1530 transfer of the Maltese islands by Charles V to Grand Master Frà Philippe de Villiers de L’Isle-Adam (1521–34), the property of the Church in Malta was still exempt from taxation.31 Once again immunity had clear financial consequences, both for the ecclesiastics who enjoyed it and for the State to whom it was denied.

The immunity of Church property from secular taxation not only highlights a significant economic dimension of jurisdictional conflicts in Malta but also plays a critical role in understanding the overarching power dynamics between Church and State during this period. This interaction underscores the importance of ecclesiastical authority as the Church sought to protect its valuable resources which were vital for its operations and influence in society. On the other hand, the grand master’s attempts to regulate ecclesiastical landholdings reflect broader absolutist ambitions that often clashed with the Church’s canonical traditions and autonomy. These tensions can be seen as emblematic of the larger struggle for power in Malta, where the aspirations of the grand master to centralize authority were continually challenged by the historical privileges held by the Church. Therefore, the intersection of taxation, land control, and religious authority not only represents a local issue but also echoes the wider European context of Church–State relations, revealing the complexity of governance and the multifaceted nature of these conflicts within Malta’s socio-political landscape.

5. Personal Immunity

The enduring principle of personal immunity, rooted in a long tradition and particularly in the struggle over lay investiture, played a crucial role in safeguarding the Church’s autonomy. By ensuring that clergy were subject solely to ecclesiastical authority, this tradition was deeply embedded in canon law, which consistently strove to protect Church members from secular interference. In Malta’s context, this principle became a significant point of contention between the bishop and the grand master. As the grand master and his secular officials attempted to exert control over the population of the island, including the clergy, tensions arose, fuelled by their perception of a disproportionately high number of clerics. This category included anyone who had undergone ordination or held a recognized position within the Church hierarchy, including those who had been tonsured. Disputes frequently ensued over who legitimately benefited from these immunities. Moreover, the familiares of the inquisitor also enjoyed these protections, encompassing all his officials, even those responsible for collecting dues from his properties. By grasping the complexities of personal immunity, one obtains insights into the broader conflicts inherent in the relationship between Church authority and secular governance, a theme that resonates throughout this essay.

The bishop was, of course, jealous of his jurisdiction over all clerics in Malta, and disputes with officials of the secular courts were common occurrences. To cite one typical case, in 1561, the cleric Giuseppe Callus who, while enjoying the privilegium fori, was nonetheless tried by the secular courts. Bishop Cubelles issued an injunction in defence of the cleric, demanding that his case be heard before the bishop’s court.32 Personal immunities were extended to all individuals in the bishop’s service, including his familiares and others who assisted him. Such exemptions also extended to the bishop’s gardeners, as evidenced by correspondence in 1575 between Bishop Martin Royas and Grand Master Jean L’Evesque de La Cassière (1572–81), in which, through a note by Notary Placido Abela, the bishop informed the grand master that the gardeners of his two gardens had been exempted from levied services during the office of his predecessor but had been forced into guard duty in the city and on the coastline in the interim and requested that the same exemptions be re-conferred upon the gardeners. In this case, the Order was happy to oblige and confirmed the customary exemption.33 In disputes of jurisdiction with the grand master over the ordination of clerics, Bishop Cagliares was advised by Rome not to desist from enforcing the full terms of the Council of Trent regarding the jurisdiction over ordinary clerics:

Con l’occasione di reiterate istanze del Gran Maestro della Religione Gerosolimatana, hanno ordinato questi Eminentissimi Signori sopra le Controversie giurisdizionali; che nell’ordinar clerici non lasci Vostra Signoria di osservare la precisa dispositione del Sacro Concilio di Trento nel c. Xi, ec.13, sess 23 de reform, acciò non seguono inconvenienti, che diano occasione di nuovo ricorso.34

So, while upholding ecclesiastical rights, Rome was still admonishing Bishop Cagliares, whose health was fast deteriorating, to make sure that due diligence was exercised regarding the suitability of candidates for admission within the clerical ranks, that is, tonsure, the minor orders, and, eventually, the major orders.

Notwithstanding Rome’s eagerness to defend clerical immunity in the face of growing State absolutism, such a defence could not go beyond the demands of what was considered to be reasonable, such as those dictated by the need to ensure security within the State. In 1578, La Cassière successfully obtained assurance from Cardinal Filippo Boncompagni of San Sisto (1548–86)35 that the Holy See would see to it that the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta would obey and enforce the laws issued by the grand master for the island’s security, requiring both that all enslaved people in Malta must spend the night in communal dormitories and that all ecclesiastic persons must inform the authorities before leaving the islands.36 In effect, a few months later, the same cardinal wrote to Bishop Gargallo, ordering him to obey and implement the said laws for the island’s security.37 However, it is evident that enforcing such laws was not easy. The issue dragged on since, three years later, in 1581, Cardinal Filippo Guastavillani (1541–87)38 again ordered Gargallo to see to it that the laws requiring all enslaved persons to sleep in communal barracks be observed and demanded that the bishop enforce the stipulated punishments for transgressors arraigned before his court.39

In the period under consideration, considerable efforts were made by the ecclesiastical authorities to implement the reforms requested by the Council of Trent regarding the clergy. Such efforts are particularly evident during pastoral visitations which, as required by the council, were carried out with considerable frequency between the late sixteenth and the mid-eighteenth century. Detailed reports of these official visits in the parishes often included an inquiry, or rather an interrogation, by the bishop or his delegated co-visitors of all the clerics in a particular parish. Inquiries were also conducted regarding the benefices they held, including examinations of their ordination papers. Notwithstanding these efforts to bring the clerics to rule, transforming them into a distinguishable class from the rest of the population, as Frans Ciappara asserts the Tridentine clerical ideal took time to be fully implemented in Malta (Ciappara 2009, pp. 1–25). The Jesuit Collegium Melitense established in 1592 provided aspirants to the priesthood the opportunity to study in Malta (Pecchiai 1938, pp. 321–22; Fiorini 2017).

Throughout the medieval and early modern periods, many clerics—particularly those not entrusted with the cura animarum—remained deeply engaged in secular affairs, often indistinguishable from the laity in their occupations and social standing. This blurred distinction increasingly came under scrutiny as the Church moved toward a more defined understanding of clerical identity. A decisive moment in this evolution came with the Council of Trent, which not only reaffirmed the sacrificial nature of the priesthood but also sought to restore discipline by prohibiting clerics from engaging in worldly trades and offices incompatible with their sacred state (Session XXIV, De Reformatione) (Tridentinum 1973). The Tridentine reform viewed the priesthood as ordered primarily toward the sacred ministry and gradually criminalized forms of clerical behaviour that diverted from this ideal. Over time, canon law began to reflect this shift more explicitly, both by restricting access to benefices for non-residential clerics and by penalizing conduct deemed unworthy of the clerical state. As Luis Navarro has observed in Persone e soggetti nel diritto della Chiesa, these transformations reflect a fundamental redefinition of the clerical subject—not merely in terms of function but as a legal and theological persona configured entirely to divine service (Navarro 2000).

Yet, as the cases studied here bear witness, the majority of clerics whose duties did not include the care of souls remained involved in daily affairs, undistinguished from the rest of the lay population. It is not difficult to understand that such a state of affairs created considerable difficulties involving immunities. The ecclesiastical court records are peppered with cases of men being arrested and then claiming a violation of ecclesiastical immunity. Such situations often prompted the grand master to seek recourse to Rome, holding the bishop accountable for the conduct and confusion caused by his clerics, a confusion which greatly hindered the administration of justice. Such must have been the case that prompted Cardinal Antonio Maria Gallo (1553–1620)40 to write to Bishop Cagliares in 1617, noting that many clerics in Malta went about without wearing the insignia of their station in line with the requirements of the Council of Trent but still expected to enjoy the relevant privileges. This led to confusion on the part of the Order of St John, whose officers often arrested or apprehended such clerics. The letter requested that the bishop should insist that his subordinates wear the clothing and insignia particular to their station.41 Clerics who would not comply stood to lose the privilegium fori, as seen in the case of the cleric Giovanni Amarelli, who in 1631 insisted on carrying a sword while also refusing to wear clerical garb and serve the Church, in contravention of an edict published by Apostolic Visitor Pier Benedetti:

Col quale si prefiggeva termine di nove giorni à ciscuno Clerico per tre monitioni canoniche di portar l’habito e servire la Chiesa sotto pena di privation del Privilegio del foro.

Giovanni Amarelli cingendo soada, nè volendo portar l’habito e servire alla Chiesa, fù dal vicario cancellato dal Rolo dei Chierici ascritti, e fù ordinato non se gli dia più la Bolletta della francligia della Gabella.42

However, the Sacra Congregatio super controversiis iurisditionibus43 decreed that, if a dissident cleric reassumed clerical garb, from that moment on he was immune from secular jurisdiction as regards his person.

Other instances of conflict arose when men claimed to be clerics while they were in prison, or even in the case of a presumed Greek cleric at the moment when he was being led to the gallows: “(il) Clerico Greco, che fece notificare il suo Clericato all’ora che s’inviava al Patibolo”.44 Such cases not only created considerable confusion but also resulted in a jurisdictional conflict. In instances where jurisdiction was disputed between the bishop and the grand master, Rome counselled the inquisitor to intervene as the representative of the Holy See and to compile evidence regarding the jurisdiction of the case. The accused, however, was to remain in the Order’s jail since it was deemed more secure and was, in any case, subject to the Holy See. However, the grand master was to ensure that the inquisitor, Nicolò Herrera (inq. 1627–30), had unrestricted access to speak to the accused at all times.

Rome was also invoked to define the jurisdictional limits between secular and ecclesiastical authority concerning errant clerics who violated ecclesiastical laws. While such clerics could not independently invoke clerical privileges if they failed to meet certain canonical requirements, they remained under the jurisdiction of bishops or ordinaries and their clerical status protected them from secular punishment unless formally stripped of their privileges through proper legal processes:

Ut clerici etiam non habentes requisita c. 6 sess. 23 de reformatione, licet ipsi tanquam contravenientes ordinationi Sacri Concili non possint per se allegare privilegium fori, nihilominus subsint iurisdictioni episcoporum, seu ordinariorum, et illorum cognitioni, nedum in causis, in quibus iidem episcopi, seu ordinarii provenerunt, verum etiam in quibus non provenerunt. Sed illos e manibus iudicis laici repetunt, quando iidem clerici adhuc clerici permanent, videlicet, si neque a iure neque ab homine per declarationem servato servandis factam privilegiis clericalibus denudati, seu privati sunt.45

Personal immunity epitomized the tension between the Church’s desire to shield its clergy from secular interference and the grand master’s efforts to extend State control. These conflicts, often centred on the ambiguous status of clerics and their adherence to Tridentine standards, required continual adjudication by the Holy See.

6. Broader Implications of Jurisdictional Struggles

Episcopal concern was not only limited to clerics but extended to guaranteeing the spiritual good of all the faithful, no one excluded. This concern for reform was the very extension of the Tridentine bishop’s primary role: shepherding his flock. Malta’s cosmopolitan scene, particularly in the harbour area, allowed for constant intermingling between the local population, the knights, Muslim slaves, and foreigners of all sorts. Such encounters were seen as fertile ground for immorality and the diffusion of heretical doctrines. Such a concern comes out, for example, in the bishops’ ad limina reports to Rome, where, to cite one example, in an undated document (c.1622) the bishop expresses this specific concern:

Episcopus conqueritur nullum fere esse in ea civitate qui, sub praetextu familiaritatis equitum Hierosolymitanorum, ecclesiam non subterfugiat. Unde gravissima scelera in dies atque horas impune committuntur.

Adulteria, concubinatus, stupra, eiusque carnibus temporibus perpetrata, contemptus excommunicationum aliarumque censurarum, et maxima sacramentorum confusio. Hinc etiam nascitur magnum ecclesiasticis rebus detrimentum, et ecclesiasticae dignitatis, libertatis, ac immunitatis contemptus.46

Jurisdiction ratione rerum was not as easily applied as one might expect, which evinces that effective jurisdiction, even in the moral and spiritual sphere, resulted from a struggle just as much as the exercise of jurisdiction in other spheres. The inability to control society’s moral dimension placed the edifice of ecclesiastical immunities in jeopardy because it called into question the Church’s authoritative standing in society and its capacity to wield effective power. One particular moral transgression that the Church sought to control was the practice of usury. In such cases, the case was to be heard by the ecclesiastical court but punishment was to be meted by the relevant tribunal:

Quando si tratta se il contratto, o patto sia usurario, e la controversia est iuris, la cognitione sempre spetta al foro Ecclesiastico, ma quando si tratta circa il fatto, o circa il castigo, come causa mixti fori, s’attende la preventione, et la cognitione e del Tribunale, che previene.47

Violation of ecclesiastical immunity carried with it ecclesiastical sanctions, including interdict and excommunication. Absolution from the latter was often reserved for the Apostolic See. Nobody was immune from such ecclesiastical censures, including the highest authority of the State, which in the case of Malta was the grand master and the Order. Immunity, therefore, carried with it grave consequences for the governance of the State. Rome had always used excommunication as the greatest instrument of defence against secular authorities who overstepped their mark and infringed on ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In an age scarred by the wars of religion, Rome did not shy away from threatening the excommunication of monarchs, most famously that of Elizabeth of England in 1570, as “part of a wider papal strategy of proactive interference in European politics” (Muller 2020, p. 3). During a time when Rome had lost a considerable territory to Protestantism, the instrument of excommunication remained a way in which it sought to exert some form of control over unruly monarchs, even though it did not bring about any significant political successes in this period. In the case of Malta, the grand master was directly subject to the pope, and yet this did not make Rome’s task of maintaining the balance between the secular and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions any easier. This is evidenced by examples48 in which the Apostolic See through Cardinal Antonio Marcello Barberini di Sant’Onofrio (1569–1646)49 exhorted Bishop Cagliares to work closely with the inquisitor to ensure that, in the ensuing jurisdictional struggles with Grand Master Frà Antoine De Paule (r.1623–36), the rights of the Church were upheld. The bishop was exhorted to send detailed accounts of any infringements so that Rome could make the appropriate decisions:

Nelle differenze giurisdizionali, che Vostra Signoria suppone esser nati con Mons. Gran Maestro, ella dovrà con l’assistenza di Mons. Inquisitore proteggere con ogni prudente intrepidezza le raggioni della sua Chiesa, servandosi anco di qui mezzi che le permettono li Sacri Canoni, et le costituzione Apostoliche; benchè difficilmente mi possa indurre à credere, che il detto Mons. Gran Maestro vogli, con violare le giurisdizione Ecclesiastica, incorrere in censure comminati da medesimi canoni, et constitutioni Apostoliche, et in questo modo illaqueare l’anima sua, et il governo di cotesto suo magistero, non lasciando di dire a Vostra Signoria, che sopra li casi occorrenti formi, et mandi sempre processi giustificati, acciò si possi pigliare quella deliberazione che sarà di ragione[…]50

The grand master’s counsellor in Rome, Frà De Saint Liger, informed the grand master that the excommunication pronounced by the bishop had been suspended for three months pending investigation in Rome. He stated that his main line of argument was to insist that the excommunicated ministers of State, in so far as the grand master was the prince of Malta, were intimately united to the Magisterium and to the Religion itself and were therefore immune from episcopal jurisdiction and the effects of any excommunication, inasmuch as they were as exempt from the bishop’s authority as the other familiares of the grand master.51 Disputes on who was to be considered a part of the familiares of each respective authority abounded. In 1627, in the context of a typical disagreement on who was actually a familiares of the Order and exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop, the Holy See determined that for the space of six months during which a fuller investigation and deliberation of the matter would take place, only those in a list included in the document would be considered as familiares, and these were free to confess their sins to a confessor of the Religion and not those approved by the bishop. This list included the servants of the grand master and the knights, the donats and confrères of Half-Cross, the officials and ministers of the Sacra Infermeria, who lived within the precincts, as well as those of the polverista, the slave prison, the mint, the foundry, the bakery, and the auberges. It also included the forzati on the galleys.52 Whereas the knights and the familiares were generally considered exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, this was not considered absolute in extreme cases. A line was crossed when a knight of St John publicly dared to vandalize the cathedral church. In this case the Congregation of the Council confirmed that the bishop had the power to excommunicate the said knight, prohibiting his entry into churches despite his membership of the Order.53

The jurisdictional struggles analysed in this study, while deeply embedded in the unique context of Hospitaller Malta, must be viewed within the broader canonical and theological developments of the universal Church. The transformations experienced in Malta mirrored wider ecclesiological shifts, particularly in the understanding of clerical identity and the nature of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. A key development in this regard was the increasing prioritization of the priesthood as an exclusive agent of sacred ministry, a process significantly advanced by the Council of Trent. The conciliar decrees not only reaffirmed the sacrificial character of the priesthood but also sought to exclude clerics from secular employment and civic office incompatible with their state, thereby shaping a new, more rigid clerical ideal (Sessio XXIV, De Reformatione).

This redefinition of the clerical state was not merely disciplinary but was progressively enshrined in canon law. Activities once tolerated among clerics—such as mercantile pursuits or public administration—came under growing scrutiny, and their prohibition evolved into formal criminalisation in ecclesiastical jurisprudence. Such developments were more than a disciplinary tightening; they marked a shift in legal anthropology. As Luis Navarro has observed, the cleric was increasingly configured as a persona iuridica wholly oriented toward divine service, distinguished not only by ordination but by function, conduct, and juridical standing within the ecclesial community (Navarro 2000).

Yet, as the Maltese case demonstrates, the implementation of this model met considerable resistance and was complicated by long-standing custom, social realities, and jurisdictional ambiguity. Many clerics—particularly those without cura animarum—continued to lead lives indistinct from the laity, blurring the boundaries that the Tridentine reformers sought to clarify. This confusion had practical consequences, especially in the adjudication of immunity claims. The ecclesiastical courts were frequently presented with cases of men arrested while claiming clerical status, while the secular authorities accused the episcopate of tolerating abuse of the privilegium fori. This lack of visible distinctiveness among clerics weakened the Church’s moral authority and complicated the assertion of its juridical claims.

Moreover, the terminological evolution of key concepts in canon law—jurisdictio, potestas, facultas—further underscores the intellectual shift occurring within ecclesiastical legal thought. A comparison with contemporary canonical definitions highlights how the historical categories employed in Malta diverged from current usage. What had once been a fluid and pastoral application of ecclesiastical jurisdiction gradually became systematized, codified, and more narrowly defined. This development, while contributing to greater juridical clarity, also revealed tensions between local practice and universal normativity.

7. Conclusions

This study has sought to demonstrate that, in early modern Hospitaller Malta, jurisdictional struggles between the bishop and the grand master were not isolated episodes of administrative friction but rather the local expression of a much broader tension within the post-Tridentine Church: the reassertion of ecclesiastical authority amidst the growing ambitions of confessional states. At the heart of these conflicts lay the contested interpretation and application of ecclesiastical immunities—personal, real, and local—which served as both legal instruments and symbols of the Church’s claim to a distinct and divinely mandated order within society.

The central hypothesis advanced here is that the implementation of the Council of Trent’s decrees in Malta—far from resolving such tensions—intensified jurisdictional conflicts by strengthening the episcopate’s legal and pastoral authority, thereby challenging the absolutist aspirations of the Order of St John. This hypothesis is substantiated by a systematic analysis of a sample of archival sources between the latter part of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century, including episcopal correspondence, papal rescripts, and rulings from Roman congregations, which reveal the extent to which local disputes over jurisdiction were mediated through appeals to Rome and grounded in broader canonical and theological debates. The period studied was chosen because it corresponds with the period of the assimilation of the Tridentine decrees in the practical context of Church–State relations; a period that coincides the application of the Catholic reform.

The findings of this study shed light on how canonical categories such as privilegium fori, cura animarum, and societas perfecta were not merely abstract legal notions but dynamic tools in the hands of competing authorities. Malta, with its unique configuration of a religious prince and an episcopal hierarchy both subject to the Pope, serves as a microcosm of the entangled sovereignties that characterised the Catholic world in the wake of Trent. It was within this setting that the boundaries between sacred and secular power were constantly negotiated, challenged, and redefined.

Moreover, this study contributes to current historiography by reframing ecclesiastical immunity not simply as a relic of medieval privilege but as a locus for understanding the evolution of clerical identity, canon law, and Church–State relations. The blurred lines between clerical and lay status, particularly among married or tonsured clerics without pastoral charge, further complicated the legal terrain and highlight the Church’s internal struggle to implement its own vision of reform. As shown, the difficulties of enforcing clerical discipline, the ambiguities surrounding the privilegium fori, and the shifting perception of sanctuary rights all indicate that the Church’s juridical culture remained in tension with the realities of local governance and social custom.

The intervention of the Holy See, while often decisive, reveals both the limits and reach of papal authority. Rome’s responses frequently appealed to custom and precedent rather than imposing blanket resolutions, suggesting a pragmatic approach that balanced universal norms with local exigencies. This mediation underscores the interconnectedness of the local and the universal in post-Tridentine Church governance, and the enduring complexity of ecclesiastical administration in a context of overlapping jurisdictions.

Ultimately, the Maltese experience offers more than a provincial episode in early modern ecclesiastical history. It illuminates the ways in which canonical structures, theological ideals, and political realities intersected in the shaping of Catholic modernity. The findings presented here invite further comparative studies with other confessional polities, as well as deeper reflection on how the Church’s legal tradition continues to mediate its role in public life—then as now— within a world of competing sovereignties, where the Church continues to grapple with asserting its voice and moral authority amid the fragmented legitimacy and diffuse power structures characteristic of the fluid, post-modern State and society.